Multifaceted Problems Asking for a Holistic Approach to Renovations

Claus Bech-Danielsen, Professor, Architect PhD., Aalborg University (BUILD) (Denmark).

In Denmark 818,000 housing units were constructed in 1960-1979. Today this still accounts for 30 per cent of all Danish residential construction. Two main typologies were developed in the period: Detached houses and multi-storey housing blocks. The detached houses are typically privately owned. The multi-storey housing blocks are typically owned by non-profit social housing associations. Approx. 50 per cent of the Danish population lives in a detached house, while approx. 20 per cent of all Danes lives in social housing. The focal point in this paper is the social housing areas built from 1960-1979.

When the large-scale social housing areas were built in the post-war period, they alleviated a serious housing shortage. The dwellings were of a high standard, they were surrounded by large green areas in the suburbs, and they were initially considered good replacements for the small and unhealthy homes in the dense inner cities. However, the social housing areas were soon to be criticized and several problems developed.

Economic problems: Already in the early 1970s - immediately after the housing areas were built - several of them experienced financial problems. Typically, they had a large supply of spacious family apartments of up to 130 m2, and these apartments became difficult to rent out during the energy crisis (1973) and the following economic downturn. At the same time, owneroccupied housing was helped along the way by inflation and tax benefits, and more and more Danes preferred the detached houses.

Constructional and technological problems: In reality, the construction boom of the 1960s and 1970s was a gigantic full-scale experiment. The construction sector was industrialized, and new construction techniques, new methods and new materials were put into use over a short number of years. Already, in the early 1980s ‘the experiment’ showed several weaknesses. For example, the concrete was damaged, and the flat roofs were leaking. Social issues: As early as 1976, a housing policy paper warned that postwar social housing areas were developing into housing for tenants at the lowest levels of the social hierarchy. In the following decades, the areas have increasingly evolved to be home to low-income groups, immigrants, refugees and other underprivileged residents. Studies have shown that the disadvantaged housing areas are still the same today as back then - and they have consistently been dealing with the same social problems.

Changing ideals: The housing areas of the post-war period were based on a universalist view on the human being. Thus, the architectural ideals were in line with the welfare state’s political ideals of equality. In the following decades, societal individualization emerged, and equality as an ideal was replaced by diversity. This led to a critique of universalism’s focus on average human needs, and the housing areas suddenly appeared architecturally uniform and as oppressive to the human needs of individuals.

Urban isolation: In recent years, there has been political criticism that housing areas constitute a ‘parallel society’ where norms and values are developed detached from the surrounding society. With the criticism of the social isolation follows the criticism of the physical isolation. Focus is therefore on for instance barriers in the borders of the areas and on infrastructure keeping the surrounding traffic outside the areas. The criticism also includes the scale of the housing areas, the mono-functional character of the areas and their uniform housing supply.

Holistic efforts in renovation

As can be seen, there is no single reason for the challenges in the postwar social housing areas in Denmark. There are many diverse issues that, in interaction, have stigmatized the housing areas and led to a negative spiral making them more and more disadvantaged. The problems of the housing areas can therefore not be solved through neither isolated

social efforts nor through isolated physical efforts. The many diverse issues require a holistic approach - across sectors, across professional disciplines and across scale levels. Analyses must be carried out that map both constructional, architectural, urban planning, economic and social problems - as well as opportunities for synergy in solving them.

Architects must renovate the buildings and create attractive spaces between the buildings. The dwellings must be modernized both technically and in terms of interior design, the facades must be re-insulated and refurbished, and the border zones along the buildings must be developed. The outdoor spaces often need to be reprogrammed and redefined to make them easier to use, and local drainage of rainwater can be considered. Places to meet for residents of all ages need to be developed - and perhaps new owner-occupied housing needs to be constructed to increase the neighborhood’s social mix.

This must be done in close collaboration with urban planners creating infrastructure and urban connections in the neighborhood. They must also ensure the development of welfare institutions and other facilities in the area. Furthermore, together with economists, municipal officials, and private developers, they must assess which physical changes are to initiate the urban strategic changes to subsequently attract private investment to the area.

Other professionals must initiate social efforts to help disadvantaged residents and to facilitate the meeting between the areas’ disadvantaged residents and the more resourceful residents who are being attracted to the area. It is crucial to keep focus on the existing residents. There is a risk that a radical renewal of an area will lead to gentrification, forcing vulnerable and disadvantaged residents out of their housing area. In several cases, this has led to a so-called ‘waterbed effect’, where a physical transformation does lead to the social challenges in a district disappearing - but subsequently the same issues appear elsewhere in the city. The social issues of the neighborhood have been resolved, but the individuals’ social issues still exist. They have just moved to another place.

Figure 1. Bispehaven – social housing area in Aarhus. An early example of renovation in Denmark – completed in the early 1990s. Modernistic architecture was criticized, it was stated the ‘less is a bore’, and both housing blocks and outdoor spaces were refurbished.

Figure 2. Vejleåparken – social housing area in Ishøj, south of Copenhagen. Prior to the renovation, the housing area was criticized for being monotonous and uniform, and the scale was described as inhuman. In the renovation, the individual facades were covered with bricks in different colors, art was added to the buildings, and an extra floor was added to some of the buildings to increase diversity. What really helped, however, was the transformation of the spaces between the buildings. (Landscape architect: Charlotte Skibsted).

Figure 3. Rosenhøj – social housing area in Viby, south/west of Aarhus. In the renovation of Rosenhøj, three different types of renovations were applied to the 27 housing blocks. New small semi-detached houses were constructed between the housing blocks to create more intimate and sheltered outdoor spaces. New roads lead through the area, and thus the experience of the area is divided into three smaller sections. Balconies are added to the end walls to have ‘eyes on the street’.

Figure 4. Gellerupparken - social housing area in Brabrand, west of Aarhus. Renovation and radical transformation are ongoing in Gellerupparken. Some of the housing blocks will be refurbished, others will be demolished. New office buildings and new housing types (private ownership and private rentals) will be constructed to develop social mix. The objective is to create social development through physical transformation. An interdisciplinary research team will evaluate the social and the physical development until 2030.

Figure 5. Gyldenrisparken – a social housing area in south-east Copenhagen – was renovated in 2008-2010 because of damaged concrete. Despite re-insulation of facades and new fibre-concrete elements, the housing blocks have kept their original character. The architects have developed on the original architecture and added basic functional and aesthetic qualities. This approach has been further developed in Denmark in the last decade.

44